FLOATING across the Pacific on a raft they named Kon-Tiki was a thrilling experience for the six brave men who recently took that trip. Says Thor Heyerdahl, who tells us about the adventure, "Experts who looked at the raft gave us little encouragement. The biggest balsa exporter in Peru said the porous balsa logs would become water-logged and sink before we had covered a quarter of the distance across the sea. A Norwegian boatswain said the raft would not hold together for a fortnight before every single rope was worn through by the movement of the big logs rubbing against each other. If we totted up all that the different experts, each in turn, pointed out as the vital flaw, there was not a length of rope, not a knot, not a measurement, not a piece of wood in the whole raft which would not cause us to founder at sea.”
After they were out on the ocean, it seemed as though the predictions of the experts would come true. "It was easy to see that the balsa logs absorbed water. The aft cross beam was worse than the others; we could press a fingertip into the soaked wood till the water squelched. Without saying anything I broke off a piece of the sodden wood and threw it overboard. It slowly vanished down into the depths. Later I saw two or three of the other fellows surreptitiously do the same—and watch somberly as the waterlogged piece of wood slowly sank.”
The Prophets of Doom
Some of the "experts" who write large books today with such titles as The Decline of the West, The Destiny of Western Man, The Crisis of our Age, are solemnly predicting that every rope that helps to tie the beams of civilization together will soon be worn through. And as we lie in our cabins at night it is alarming to hear these ropes creaking and groaning, “each rope having its own note according to its thickness and tautness." The whole thing seems to be like "one complaining chorus round us in the dark.”
The Prophets of Bliss
But then why not reach for The Ladies Home Journal. Looking into the current issue (July, 1951) we at once see Joseph Stalin's military figure. But turn quickly to the opposite page and there you meet the benign countenance of Albert Schweitzer. A small kitten sits quietly on his hand. It seems to know that Schweitzer's life principle is a "reverence for life." “His entire personal life is a reflection of his own deep 'reverence for life!’,” says Harold Stassen. If only we would follow the example of Schweitzer and not that of Stalin, he argues, then all would be well. He quotes Schweitzer himself as saying, "I look to the future with hope" (p. 131). And as for himself, Stassen adds in conclusion, “I believe man was meant to be free. I believe man was meant to respect other men. I believe there is a God. I believe that in the half century ahead the philosophy of Albert Schweitzer will be victorious and that of Joseph Stalin will fade" (p. 132).
Here then is an expert predicting, as it were, that the balsa logs of history will not become waterlogged, and that the ropes which tie them together will easily hold till the end of the journey.
What Choice?
Which expert shall the hapless public believe? Neither the prophets of doom nor the prophets of bliss have actually crossed the Pacific of life in a raft. They speak with great unction, but only on the basis of the "long experience of the human race." The pessimists see that the balsa logs are absorbing water. With "infallible logic" they calculate that before the end of the journey the whole raft must sink. The optimists argue that the balsa logs consist of wood and that they must float. Both use the word must very freely. They can do nothing else. What they are talking about lies beyond the experience of any of them. Yet both pretend to speak in terms of experience only.
Our Task
Such is the wisdom of the world. It has been made foolishness with God. Our task as Christians is to tell men so. But it has pleased God to save men through the "foolishness of preaching.” Our task as Christians is again to tell men so. A simple all comprehensive alternative must be placed before men. Half-way measures contain no challenge. Men must turn away from the pessimists; they are not nearly pessimistic enough. The human race is not merely adrift, facing a possible extinction. Men are subject to the wrath of God and are headed for the final judgment day. They will one day cry to the mountains to fall on them, wishing that the prophets of doom might be right. For then they would escape the wrath to come.
And by then they would long since have known that the prophets of bliss are wrong. These are not nearly optimistic enough. For those that believe in Christ there will be eternal joy in the presence of God, not merely some sunny days as the Ken-Tiki continues its way surrounded by the monsters of the deep.
Experience and the Bible
Yet, by and large, Fundamentalists do not thus challenge the wisdom of the world. Their theology does not permit them to do so. The theology of Fundamentalism is largely Arminian in character. And an essentially Arminian theology is vitiated by the fact that it is, in part, at least, based on that very "experience" on which the non-Christian prophets of doom and of bliss depend for their predictions. Fundamentalists start from the experience of freedom, even as Stassen, the humanitarian, starts with the “experience” of freedom. While waving high the Bible, the Fundamentalist yet, at critical junctures, appeals to experience as the final guide. Fundamentalism, in short, is inadequately Protestant. It does not do full justice to the Bible as the only authoritative guide for human experience.
This is sad indeed. Fundamentalists mean to be true to the Bible. They are most sincere. They are, many of them, self-sacrificing and wholly devoted to the Christ who bought them with His precious blood. But their witness to the world is vitiated by their principle of experience as standing next to rather than subject to Scripture. Fundamentalism, let us say, speaks on a radio station called Back to the Bible and Experience. It sounds like two broadcasters on the same wavelength, each trying to drown the other out.
A God or God
On a Sunday afternoon you listened to Harold Stassen. He says he believes there is a God. Now a God is a finite god, is no god. But the “experience” of sinful man teaches us to believe at best in a god. Such teaching leaves men without the true God and without hope in the world. Yet this is the best that the prophets of bliss can offer. They are no better than the prophets of doom.
Now turn on the Back to the Bible and Experience program. It speaks vigorously of God, of the true God, the God of the Bible. At the same time it speaks, even if less vigorously, of a god, the god of experience. It assumes that the two are identical. It assumes the god of Stassen and the God of Luther to be the same God. The result is that you are not clearly challenged to forsake your trust in the false prophets of bliss.
God Probably Exists
These prophets of bliss are very "scientific." They speak with moderation. They say they believe man was made to have "reverence for life," to respect his fellow man.. When they say that they believe this, they imply that they do not know it. How can anyone know? The universe is full of unknowables. They believe in the incomprehensibility of God, that is, of Reality. They assume that God is incomprehensible even to Himself.
Of course the god, the finite god they believe in, is incomprehensible to himself. He cannot, then, help man to know himself. He leaves the prophets of bliss to speak as from themselves.
Now again turn on the Back to the Bible and Experience message. It speaks vigorously of the God of the Bible, as certainly existing, as clearly revealing Himself both in the world and in the Word. It speaks of knowing, though not fully understanding, this God. At the same time it speaks even if less vigorously of God as probably existing, because experience, and reason based on experience, it says, cannot reach to certainty. And it assumes that the God of the Bible as clearly revealed and the god of “experience” as dimly discernible are the same God. It assumes that the God of Calvin and the god of Stassen are identical. The result is again that you are not clearly challenged to forsake the prophets of doom. They may probably be right, by the admission of the Fundamentalist himself. Worse than that, if God probably exists He is not God at all. In fact, if God only probably exists, then He surely does not exist at all and the prophets of doom are certainly right.
The Growing Christ
On another Sunday afternoon you perhaps listen to a program called The Growing Christ. The speaker for the day is Karl Barth, of Basel, Switzerland. With great power and enthusiasm he urges men to return to the God of the Word and the Christ of the Word. This God, he says, is first "wholly other" than man. But in Christ He becomes wholly identical with man. And then in Christ man comes to participate in the very attributes of God. The whole thing is one process, first God coming down to man and then man growing up into God. And all that because God is God for man in Christ and man is man for God in Christ. It is Christ in whom and through whom man grows into divinity.
Surely, you say, Back to the Bible and Experience will speak out against this basic denial of the Christian faith. And, to be sure, you will hear some criticism by the Fundamentalist to the effect that Barth is not fully true to the Bible. But after that you will hear much of agreement with Barth on the part of the Fundamentalist. The theology of Barth is based upon human experience, not on the Bible. And the theology of Fundamentalism is based partly also upon experience. Hence the sad fact that one does not find any basic criticism of the current heresy of dialectical theology on the part of Fundamentalists. And what is true of this heresy is true of all modern heresies. Fundamentalism is not in a position to guard itself against them with any degree of thoroughness. It is like a helpless hen that sees the hawk carry off its chicks and does little more than make a noise about it.
True, in practice Fundamentalism is much better than it is here presented as being. But that is because Fundamentalists are at heart the best of Christian believers. They therefore often give a better testimony than their system would lead us to expect.
The Dependent Spirit
Growing tired of the Sunday broadcasts you give the modern religionist one final chance. This time the speaker is an expert on the psychology of religion. His name is Leuba. Of course, he says, we who apply the scientific method to the phenomena of religion, believe in regeneration. If you Fundamentalists tell us that you have had the experience of regeneration, we shall not deny it. A fact is a fact and we would be the last to tamper with the facts.
But now if you wish to tell us what this fact of regeneration means you will, of course, have to talk in language that we all can understand. You will have to explain the meaning of regeneration in naturalist terms. For those are the only terms that all men understand. Are you ready to do that? If not we shall be compelled, however, much against our will, to call your experience meaningless.
You have now reached the point of desperation. Your own experience of regeneration is said to be meaningless unless you can explain it away in naturalistic terms. Does not Leuba see that this is to prejudge the case? Does he not see that, to all intents, it is impossible? Yet he had proclaimed his readiness to accept any fact from any source.
What will be the response of Back to the Bible and Experience? This time the voice that speaks is even weaker than on earlier occasions. It speaks of regeneration as the gift of the Spirit. But then it speaks also of faith as preceding regeneration. For how can God save men, if man does not want to be saved? You are free to resist the work of Christ. It is you who must let Christ into your hearts or He cannot come in at all.
Here the Fundamentalist is virtually admitting that Leuba is right in separating the fact of regeneration from the system of Christian religion of which it is a part. Fundamentalism itself will not admit that regeneration is the work of the sovereign and free Spirit. If the Fundamentalist is to be born again he wants himself to be present at the operation and see what it is that the Spirit does. He wants to help the Spirit of God by an act of self-conscious acceptance that is, in part, independent of the Spirit. Thus the Spirit of God is not longer tree to go and do in sovereign pleasure what he wishes to do. The Spirit of God and the spirit of man, the sinner, make a common testimony on sin and on salvation.
To reveal the compromising character of Fundamentalism fully it would be necessary to discuss every major Christian doctrine. Fundamentalists compromise the Gospel not merely at some but at every point. At every point the Voice of Experience creates so much static that the Voice of Scripture cannot clearly be heard.
A Common Witness?
A highly important as well as highly practical question now faces the adherents of the Reformed Faith in the modern world. It is that of cooperation with Fundamentalists or Evangelicals in a common witness for the Christian Faith. There are two opinions on the subject of cooperation with Evangelicals among Reformed Christians. According to the one opinion, it is, and according to the other opinion, it is not, possible for Reformed Christians to engage in a common witness with Evangelicals or Fundamentalists, without compromise.
The two groups holding these opposite opinions agree that the Reformed Faith is not merely a matter of the five points of Calvinism, but that it is the Christian faith. It therefore includes all the doctrines of the Christian faith.
The difference between the two groups centers on the question of the nature of the witness to the Christian faith as this is given by Fundamentalists or Evangelicals. The nature of that witness we have found to be one of compromise with unbelief at every point. A common witness is, therefore, we believe, the same in effect as a compromising witness.
A common witness is of necessity the lowest common denominator witness. This would be true even if, in any given organization, the representatives of the Reformed Faith were in the majority. Any witness to the Christian faith must be positive as well as negative. It is always both at the same time. It cannot be otherwise. There is no intelligible witness against the wisdom of the world except in the name of the wisdom of God. And a common witness involves, therefore, a common responsibility for the positive affirmations of the faith as well as the negations against unbelief. Now the positive affirmations of Evangelicals are, without exception, confused and compromising in character. It is for the confused and compromising· witness of Fundamentalism that Reformed Christians become co-responsible in any effort at giving a common witness to the world.
A Reformed Witness
Do Reformed Christians want their own witness to be identified before the world with those who cannot speak otherwise than words of compromise? Of course they do not. Then let them not either as churches or as individuals be joined to councils or associations where such. compromise necessarily occurs, either through organizational or doctrinal relationships.
Do Reformed Christians want their own witness, the only consistent witness to the Christian faith, to be heard in the world? Then let them band together with all Reformed men and groups of Reformed men everywhere for a common testimony to that which alone can really challenge the wisdom of the world.
The end of time approaches. Unbelief is more consistent in the expressions of its principles than it has ever been. The modern prophets of doom, and of bliss, the modern naturalistic theologians such as Barth and Brunner, make man and his own experience the standard and the test of truth. The Reformed Faith consistently expressed is the only thing that can challenge the God-defying humanism of this latter day. Will Reformed churches and individual Christians then squelch their own voice? Will they create static for themselves as they try to make themselves heard? We trust they will not. We trust on the contrary, that they will make themselves heard without compromise.